F 1215 
.B652 
Sopy 1 



THE 



MEXICAN SPHINX 



J. J. GUTIERREZ 



THE 



MEXICAN SPHINX 



J. J. GUTIERREZ. 



^ ■•■ » 



BOSTON: 

ROCKWELL AND CHURCHILL, PRINTERS. 

i 890. 



■A 



3^^ 
urt 



PREFACE. 



OBJECT OF THE REFUTATION. 



To a person who has lived for long years in a foreign country, 
the small circle of friends which he has gradually formed offers 
the only obstacle to the wish to return to his own country, where 
he is claimed by ties which never can be forgotten. For me, 
who have had the fortune to find in my friends in this country a 
second family to augment my own, the two countries to which 
the members of this family belong occupy the most prominent 
place in my thoughts in those moments of mental expansion 
when the heart and not the head rules. In those moments there 
is no heated discussion possible ; any opinion, although entirely 
opposed, is expressed with the desire to know the truth ; and the 
debate, to bring forth and illustrate this truth, can never go beyond 
the limits set by affection. 

Some time ago, in one of our friendly gatherings, the conver- 
sation turned upon the barbarity of the conquerors of Mexico, 
and of the domination of that country for centuries. The opin- 
ions expressed depreciating the Spanish race, which may have 
committed acts which cannot be defended in the light of modern 
civilization, but are certainly not worse than those of which other 
nations have been guilty, and the want of historical truth evinced, 
made me suspect that these opinions might have been caused by 
some work which was unknown to me. I did not cease my in- 
quiries until I obtained the book which had given rise to our 
friendly discussion, and in this manner the work which calls 
forth this criticism came to my notice. 

Since that work pretends to assume the character of an histori- 
cal study, it demanded my special attention, and for that reason I 
devoted to its study the few leisure hours which my occupations 



4 PREFACE. 

left me. I extracted and arranged with special care the data con- 
tained therein, which required a long time, and compared them 
with the historical data obtained in my country, both with regard 
to the Spanish domination of Mexico, as well as to what has 
happened since the declaration of its independence. As a result 
of my labors I found nothing to contradict my belief, that since 
the author of the book in question is little versed in both the 
ancient and the modern history of the country to which he refers, 
it is impossible that his work can be truthful, nor can the opinion 
be exact which he forms of that country, and which he tries to 
form in the minds of his readers. 

Every writing emitting a personal idea is worthy of the con- 
sideration due to a personal opinion ; if true, it is inexpugnable ; 
and if not true, it can be confuted only by substituting one 
opinion with another one of the same nature. But it is a different 
matter to attack an opinion resulting from an historical study 
and having no personal character, but describing a nation, judg- 
ing it with apparent proofs deduced from its history, and affirm- 
ing these deductions with the personal studies made in that 
nation. 

To demonstrate whether or not a study of this kind is based 
on historical truth invoked by the author, it is not necessarv to 
possess great talent or to be accustomed to write for the public. 
To take an historical fact and place it against what the author 
to be contradicted tries to deduce therefrom, leaving the reader 
to judge for himself, this can be done even by a child, as nobody 
will believe that white can be obtained by using black. Truth 
will make its own way even in the minds of the most prejudiced. 

There exists, notwithstanding, a great difficulty if this work 
consists of continuous invectives against a race or a nation, and 
its government and patriotism, which are likely to affect the 
calm judgment of the critic if he does not possess the necessary 
criterion to understand that nothing can be gained by answer- 
ing one insult by another; and that, on the contrary, it may prove 
prejudicial; that in refuting, or in writing about history, a pre- 
conceived bias is in itself sufficient to ruin the work which is 
being written; that if truth, in order to convince, must neces- 
sarily humble the antagonist, no one would be willing to accept 
it ; and finally, that for an honest opposition each opponent must 
occupy his proper place, as otherwise they would be alike. 



PREFACE. 5 

I hope not to forget what I say above, and in this manner to 
avoid the principal difficulty of my task, as in this conflict I 
shall use the very same historical citations contained in the book 
alluded to, without adding a single new one. I shall only make 
some digressions from the main course for the purpose of making 
the reader acquainted with what is not yet sufficiently known, 
in order to modify his judgment in favor of the purpose which 
brings me into the arena, and to encourage better relations 
between Mexico and the United States, by destroying, as far as 
possible, erroneous ideas which have no reason for existence. 

I wish still to observe that I shall make no comparisons, as a 
precept of Christianity teaches us that " thou shalt be measured 
by the yard thou measurest by," and besides, I consider them 
odious. If I make use of the same comparisons that the author 
of the book alluded to has used, I remain within the bounds set 
by him, and especially when his own work is under discussion, 
and by doing so I shall in no way be wanting in the respect 
which I have always had for persons and subjects. 

I will not commit the injustice of believing that the erroneous 
opinions so often heard about my native country are intended as 
a gratuitous offence, as during the nine years that I have lived 
among the American people I have had occasion to know them 
well, and am convinced that later they will do us justice. These 
opinions are merely the result of an error, which cannot be 
eradicated if false historical representations are allowed to go un- 
contradicted, and thus further affirm prejudices by the silence of 
those who can and ought to dissipate them. If a citizen of what- 
ever nationality has knowledge of defamations of his country, 
and does not endeavor, as in duty bound, to make clear the 
truth, he is not worthy of his own country nor of the respect 
and consideration of the country in which he lives. 

Before concluding, and on the ground that a literary work has 
no sex, I beg the author of the one in question to pardon me for 
attacking his book ; but he has forced me, as a Mexican, to do so. 
I shall not answer his invectives against my race by other invec- 
tives, as that would be imitating what he has himself done with- 
out any justification. If I do not accept those parts of his 
arguments which I believe to be illogical, and present them as 
they are, I only use the right which he must concede to any 
reader of his book. 



() PREFACE. 

What I now publish, as a refutation, does not contain all that I 
have written during many months upon the work, " Political and 
Progressive Mexico." But as I could not overcome the difficul- 
ties which I met in regard to its publication, and as I learn that 
in the near future a new edition of that book is to appear, renew- 
ing the attacks upon my country, I feel doubly obliged to answer 
now so as not to apparently approve its contents by my silence. 

Boston, Aug-, i, 1S90. 



THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 



A REFUTATION OF THE WORK " POLITICAL AND 
PROGRESSIVE MEXICO." 1 



" The art and beauty of historical composition is to write the truth." — 
(Bernal Diaz del Castillo). 

The above-quoted maxim was written by one of the valiant 
companions of Cortes ; and the author of " Political and Pro- 
gressive Mexico," by invoking this axiom, intended to invest his 
work with a character of veracity, without which an historical 
essay is without value and can be at once contradicted. A 
writer on contemporaneous history who pronounces his personal 
opinions, even if they are erroneous, does not destroy what he 
himself contended for, since historical truth is sifted out from 
contradictory testimony. This does not, however, happen when, 
speaking of a well-settled historical fact of that class which has 
left visible traces, he says to his readers, "I have looked for 
these traces in the country itself, and have not seen them," and 
by this assertion stamps at once upon the history which he pre- 
tends to write such a character of falsehood, as if a writer on 
ancient Rome should say, " I have not seen the Colosseum ; " or, 
if writing on the history of Mexico, he should deny the existence 
of the monumental ruins of Mitla or Palenque. 

This will scarcely be credible without taking into account that 
the injunction of Bemal Diaz demands, as the first indispensable 
condition, a calm mind exempt from prejudices, as it is a well- 
known fact that a preconceived idea is a moral infirmity, which 
not only prevents perceiving the limits not to be passed by the 
narrator of historical events without descending from the lofty 

1 Boston, iSSS : Lee & Shepard, publishers. , 



8 THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 

position which the historian ought to occupy, but also prevents 
seeing objects as they really are. 

We shall see, in the critical examination which I will make of 
the work to be refuted, if this first and indispensable condition 
has been present, or considered unnecessary. 

The author begins his narration by quoting authorities for the 
history of Mexico, relating the conquest of that country, describ- 
ing briefly the actions of the conquerors, and the purpose of the 
government of Spain in the establishment of colonial govern- 
ment ; dwelling especially on all those acts which he believes 
worthy of reprehension, while in this part of his relation nothing 
is to be found favorable to the conqueror, under any aspect; and 
he surmises that the Catholic religion was degraded to an extent 
which could not be even suspected by those oppressed by the 
conquerors. It would not have been prejudicial, but rather 
favorable to his purpose of writing a historical study, to have 
added also some brighter touches to his picture, as not every- 
thing was dark in the Spanish conquest and domination of 
Mexico. 

In order that my readers may form a perfect idea of how much 
an author may be blinded by prejudice, I will only quote a single 
paragraph, which I find on page 200. It reads: " On the other 
hand, shallow religious partisanship has credited the Span- 
iards with achievements in Mexico, educational and moral, of 
which there is little material proof." That is to say, that the 
grand structures, which he himself refers to when speaking 
about education, and some of which w r ere constructed by the 
partisans of the religious idea, and others under that religious 
idea itself, are not proofs for the author, who does not seem to 
know, either, that under the union of the religious and political 
idea (since it cannot be conceived how Church and State, being 
legally united, could be each independent), arose whatever edi- 
fices of that class may yet exist in cities and villages, and they 
afford proofs of such grandeur, that only he who is blind could 
say, "they do not exist." 

Continuing his narrative, the prejudice which rules him 
appears again in the following passage, where, after quoting from 
a work of Mr. David A. Wells, who defines according to his own 
fancy the object for which the colonial government was estab- 
lished, the author of the work which I criticise says, on page 



THE MEXICAN SPHINX. \) 

182 : " Is not that a description of the English domination in 
Ireland? The consequences are curiously correspondent. The 
land in Mexico " (referring to 1888) " is owned, like the land in 
Ireland, by a small number of proprietors. The tillers in Mexico 
have no more interest in the result of their toil than had the ten- 
ants in Ireland prior to the beginning of the land-reform era, 
forced upon the English government by the people of Ireland. 
The Mexican landlords reside abroad in large numbers, like the 
landlords of Ireland ; and the money produced by the soil flows 
out of Mexico, in exports of bullion for the absentees and their 
creditors, precisely as the crops and money of Ireland." 

The foregoing paragraph comprises sundry ideas, dissimilar in 
my opinion ; and as I said before that I desire to present the de- 
batable points with distinctness, I will separate them into three, 
in order to be more concise in my answers. 

First. " The land in Mexico, like the land in Ireland, is 
owned by a small number of proprietors." 

Second. "The landlords of Mexico, like the absentee land- 
lords of Ireland, reside abroad and pocket the produce of the 
soil." 

Third. " That the proletariat of Mexico has not forced the 
nation to reform the agrarian laws, as the Irish have forced the 
English government to do." 

But, since for the sake of the clearness of my refutation I cannot 
answer them in the foregoing order, I will invert the numbers so 
as to finish with the first, which for my purpose is the only one of 
importance. 

Answering the third : That I gladly shall accept and applaud 
whatever may be done in favor of the Irish people, so that they 
may have the satisfaction of living contentedly in the land of their 
ancestors, and not in a foreign country. 

To the second, I answer : It is not true, at all, that most of the 
Mexican landlords reside abroad, — the reverse is the truth, — but 
I find nothing undue or blamable in any person residing wherever 
he pleases, as otherwise I should not live now in a country which 
I like ; nor do I believe that one who receives the income from his 
own property is plundering anybody ; and lastly, if the Mexican 
landlord pays his creditors he proves his honesty to everybody 
who may hear of it. 

As regards the first point, without stopping to consider the cov- 



10 THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 

ert insinuation which the author wishes to convey, as servitude 
disappeared from Mexico long before the declaration of independ- 
ence, I will limit myself only to prove that the natives of Mexico 
have enjoyed the right of property ever since the conquest ; and 
this has followed its progressive course, which in nothing differs 
from what happens and will continue to happen in every nation. 

Since the conquest the Indian has been in possession of land, 
either as individual or common property, as proved in the same 
■work which I am contradicting, quoting from Alzog, who asserts, 
and his estimate is low, that "the clerical party possessed 
about one-half of the immovable property of the municipalities " 
which belonged in common to all the inhabitants, for the greater 
part Indian rustic laborers ; and as this property consisted nearly 
all of lands, the ground-rent to be paid was very moderate, and 
the property passed from generation to generation, until the law 
abolishing mortmain converted it into the real property of its pos- 
sessors, who subdivided it between themselves. As from the 
time of the conquest the acquisition of property by legal means 
was permitted to everybody, without distinction of persons, it can 
easily be understood how this acquisition extended as rapidly as 
the social conditions and the increase of population permitted; 
and this cannot be brought about by any vaunted reform of the 
agrarian laws. 

The truth of the aforesaid has long been demonstrated, as it is 
the rational consequence of a natural law which applies to all 
nations, be they more or less civilized, and is therefore inevitable. 
This is the reason why we see in Texas and other States of the 
Union, properties covering immense areas, while this is scarcely 
possible in any of the New England States. Since more than 
twenty years the subdivision of rural property in Mexico has be- 
come notably frequent in all the districts where the increase of 
population demanded it, and to-day it is a common occurrence to 
see the Mexican landlord selling his property, without official com- 
pulsion, in small fractions to his tenants or outsiders ; and this has 
been done to such an extent, that in some districts this subdivision 
has nearly obtained the same proportions as in New England. 

As regards the interest which the Indian feels in the soil, or as 
the Spanish say, the value which even the smallest parcel of 
landed property has for the Indian, if the author whom I am 
refuting would only have taken the trouble to make inquiries of 



"T\HE MEXICAN SPHINX. 11 

any, even the most ignorant, Mexican, he would have learned 
that there have been thousands of lawsuits in the courts of 
Mexico, in the colonial era and since the Independence, which 
have cost the Indians twenty times the value of the land in dis- 
pute ; and thus he would have seen that we had no need of asking 
foreigners for the reform of our agrarian laws. 

If he should wish to know for what reason the same Indian, not- 
withstanding his religious fanaticism (which I will explain further 
on), was the cause of making irrevocable the law secularizing 
church property, so that not even the Emperor Maximilian, in 
spite of his pledge, could abrogate it, he would learn that the 
slightest attack on the reform-laws, which finally rendered pos- 
sible the subdivision of property, would have caused all the 
" oppressed race" to which he refers to rise as a single man, and 
would have made the war of Intervention still more sanguinary. 

In the same paragraph, on page 183, the author says: "A 
more muscular race made a more persistent resistance to England, 
and Ireland has begun the recovery of her complete rights." 
Without paying attention to the gratuitous insult towards my 
country and myself, implied by the preceding phrase, my refuta- 
tion is very simple. If we are not a muscular race, we ought to 
be credited with another quality which is generally opposite to a 
muscular development, and more notable by its effects in a 
nation than in the individual. As regards the author who writes 
an historical work and compares the situation of our country with 
that of another, and prefers that people which begins by using 
forcible means against a foreign domination, rather than us, who 
have begun by using the first natural right, that of sovei'eignty, 
without which no other right can exist, this is a matter of taste 
about which there can be no dispute. Notwithstanding the 
weight which the opinion of a native of that country may have in 
such a case, I believe that the acceptance of the principle laid 
down by him will not be general. 

In the same ninth chapter, On page 184, I find the following 
passage : " A patriot priest, the divine instinct of nationality 
carrying him above the dreaming masses of his fellow-country- 
men, at length arose against the Spanish domination. He paid 
with his life for his devotion to his country, but the death of 
Hidalgo blew the breath of liberty into Mexico. His country 
relapsed for a time under the old oppression. In another decade 



12 THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 

she made another desperate and more successful, but far from 
sufficient, effort; and, when the flag of the republic was unfurled 
in 1821 ■, the symbol upon it was that of the old native race, the 
eagle :md the cactus, the emblems of the Aztecs." 

I must again invert the order of the preceding paragraph, so 
as to begin by what can be answered shortly. 

First. And this I do not answer, because I do not know these 
kind of efforts, " more successful, but far from sufficient." 

Second. To the statement that the republic was established 
in Mexico in 1S21, I answer at once, it is not true, as I will prove 
in due time by quotations from the same author whom I am 
refuting. 

Third. After the death of Hidalgo the " country relapsed for 
a time under the old oppression." This is not true ; I will begin 
at this point, which requires an explanation. 

At the time of Hidalgo's death the former oppression, although 
part of the country was subjugated again, could never be fully 
reestablished, as the contest in large masses was converted into a 
struggle of small fractions; and this, far from extinguishing the 
breath of liberty, strengthened and prepared it for the appearance 
in this strife of the most distinguished hero of the Mexican 
Independence, Morelos. 

Morelos was a truly Christian priest of the lower clergy, like 
others of his class, who fought and shed their blood for the inde- 
pendence of their country. He belonged to that class of people 
who. in the words of the author, on page 1S5, " knew little of 
arms and had none." But he possessed a large stock of common 
sense, which taught him that which the author discloses to the 
public, and which I accept without reserve: that the Mexican 
nation is not a muscular race; and he knew how to take advan- 
tage of a quality which distinguishes the Mexican from another 
nation ; and, with firm resolution, he grasped the banner of inde- 
pendence and sallied forth to the struggle. He had no arms for 
the contest, but conquered them from his opponents ; his com- 
patriots did not know the use of these arms, but he taught them 
to wield them and to carry them from victory to victory over the 
oppressors of his country, in such a manner that it is an histori- 
cal fact, that the gre test captain of this century declared, "I 
would be honored by his being one of my generals." This opinion 
was drawn from the great Napoleon by the famous siege of 



THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 13 

Cuautla, and I hope the author of the paragraph on pages 184 
and 185 will read the account of this siege and give us his 
opinion of the same, even without making comparisons. 

When Morelos had been sacrificed, the struggle for indepen- 
dence did not die out, for Guerrero (treacherously shot by the 
conservatives later on), Alvarez, Victoria, Bravo, and a host of 
others, continued to uphold the cause proclaimed by Hidalgo. 

With reference to the second point of this controversy, namely, 
the establishment of the republic in 1821 as the first government 
of independent Mexico, the fajsity of which I offered to demon- 
strate by the very words of the author of the assertion, I can do 
so in few words: On page 1S5, after explaining the causes 
which contributed toward the form of government chosen by the 
Mexican people on accomplishing its independence from Spain, 
in 1821, he says, textually : " It was impossible that such a people 
should be eager in seizing upon the chances for the erection of a 
representative government on the ruins of hereditary despot- 
ism." Therefore, it was not a republic which was established 
in 1822, but a monarchy, with Iturbide as emperor. Thus has 
this been proved by the very author of the expression, " Mexi- 
can republic in 1821." 

And from the same paragraph, on page 185, arises the following 
explanation : Iturbide was elected by an assembly of notables 
exactly the counterpart of that which the author of the work re- 
ferred to, when speaking of the election of Maximilian, qualifies 
thus, on page 5 88 : " But the assembly of reactionaries, who went 
through that ceremony for him, no more represented the people 
of Mexico than the people of any other land." There was, not- 
withstanding, a noteworthy difference between the two assemblies ; 
that which elected Iturbide did not have the support of a foreign 
invader, while that which elected Maximilian was sustained by 
foreign bayonets. The former wished to continue the monarchical 
tradition, at that time active and strong in the privileged class ; 
while that electing Maximilian opposed the Republic, established 
since many years, and wished to subject their country to foreign 
domination, and threatened its integrity. Maximilian was un- 
known in Mexico and had to obtrude himself upon the country, 
and this fact must have been foreseen by those who elected him. 
Iturbide was favored by his prestige as a Mexican, and thus was 
able to reap the benefits of what others had sown. To this must 



14 THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 

be added that the empire, established in Mexico in 1822, was 
swept away a few months afterward, and not by the reactionary 
party, and the republic proclaimed in 1823 ; and it will be seen 
that the author of the book in question was neither very felicitous 
in explaining the motives which caused Iturbide's election, nor 
its consequences. 

The precedent of not smothering the monarchical idea in its 
fountain, when a nation is born to independent life, is a great 
evil. Washington, in his most eminent act of patriotism and 
abnegation, foresaw the evils which would be caused to his coun- 
try by accepting a position which would have flattered any other 
person, as men of his mark are the exception, and thus he extin- 
guished what would have caused continuous revolutions in his 
country. Iturbide, ambitious, with less foresight, chose to sow 
the seeds of discord by strengthening the ideas of retrogression, 
to eradicate which more than fifty years of continuous struggles 
and the nationalization of church property have been required. 
If my advice is worth anything, whoever pretends to write a his- 
torical study founded upon facts, ought not to forget what I have 
pointed out as the causes of our revolutions, as thus he will save 
time, paper, and refutations. 

In all the subsequent paragraphs on page 185 appears the same 
historical inaccuracy. I will not copy its whole contents, in 
order not to make my present work more protracted, but will 
only refer to the principal points. " England, the usurer of the 
world, advanced money on what she intended to be, as in the 
case of Egypt, the security of the whole country." This is also 
false, as England knows well enough where it pays to intrude, 
and I can only look upon this proposition as proof of the bias 
existing in the writer's mind. 

" Mexico was thrown into bankruptcy by Northern invasion." 
This deserves about as much credit as the assertion about 
England's intentions in Mexico. "A direct consequence of her 
bankruptcy was the intrigue of France, England, and Spain 
for the tripartite invasion of Mexico." This is false again, and 
I will prove it. 

When the Wyke-Zamacona treaty was not ratified by the 
Mexican Congress, and the payment of the contracts suspended 
on account of the revolutions instigated by the party, called by 
the author, as aftn-esaid, " reactionary," and not, as he pretends, 



THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 15 



in consequence of the bankruptcy of the country, the so-called re- 
actionary, or better said, retrograde party took advantage of the 
effect caused by this measure of the liberal government to invite 
the foreign intervention. They began active work in Paris, and 
when the Emperor Napoleon opened negotiations with the 
British and Spanish governments, without informing them of 
his ultimate projects, that party succeeded in bringing about 
the tripartite convention. 

The heaviest creditor of Mexico was Great Britain, the next 
Spain, and the least of all France, to whom Mexico was indebted 
for only half a million of dollars, more or less, including sixty 
thousand dollars, value of some pastry abstracted by the popu- 
lace of Mexico from a French pastry-cook's shop ! The in- 
vading forces, composed of the three nationalities, landed at 
Vera Cruz, and as regards numbers they occupied the following 
order : First, the French ; second, the Spanish ; and last, the Eng- 
lish, which only counted one thousand men, and never passed 
beyond Vera Cruz. The French and Spanish forces, by agree- 
ment with the Mexican government, penetrated into the interior of 
the country under condition that, notwithstanding the permission 
to thus establish themselves in a less deadly climate, they should 
return to their first positions if the conference to be held in 
Soledad, a village of the State of Vera Cruz, should not be 
productive of peace. The president of the republic was an 
Indian of pure blood, Benito Juarez, and the Mexican dele- 
gate to the conference was Manuel Doblado. 

The conference took place without success as to bringing peace, 
but with complete success as to convincing England and Spain 
that the real purpose of Napoleon, with the connivance of the 
conservative party, was the establishment of an empire, to which 
end the French expedition had secretly brought out General 
Almonte, the reputed son of the patriot-priest, Morelos. 

Immediate and unconditional restoration of the confiscated 
ecclesiastical property was demanded, and Napoleon, moreover, 
exacted the cession of the State of Sonora, a small slice, indeed, of 
Mexican territory ! 

There was no longer any question of collecting a debt, but a 
determined purpose, for the attainment of which Spain, even less 
than England, wished to contribute. From this moment the tri- 
partite convention was broken, and as the author in question 



16 THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 

omitted to state whether the English and Spanish forces remained 
or retired, I hasten to inform him, so as to calm his uneasiness for 
our welfare, that hoth forces reembarked. The French remained, 
and, to collect a debt of half a million dollars, they were prepared 
to expend hundreds of millions, and to sacrifice thousands of 
lives. 

Matters commenced to appear in their true light when the in- 
vading army was joined by the revolutionary conservative forces; 
the struggle began, and I shall not stop to describe it in detail, 
with our reverses and triumphs, one of the latter, that of May 5th 
before Puebla, which forced the invaders to retreat to Orizaba, 
until large reinforcements arrived from France. After their land- 
ing, the invading army advanced again, and after the siege and 
capture of Puebla, which certainly was not dishonorable to our 
forces, the former arrived in the capital. 

An assembly was convoked for mere form's sake, as long before 
Maximilian had accepted the crown under conditions adequate to 
the object in view ; and this assembly, which I repeat was called 
long after the private acceptance of the crown, decreed the 
empire. 

A regency was appointed, consisting of Mr. Labastida, to-day 
Archbishop of Mexico, General Salas, and Almonte, who, as 
explained before, had been imported for this purpose by the 
French expedition. This regency debated at once the uncondi- 
tional restoration of the ecclesiastical property and the abroga- 
tion of the laws abolishing mortmain, without being able to 
rind a solution of the difficulty. For this reason Bishop Labastida 
resigned, after launching a strong protest, which I beg those 
persons to read who desire to learn if I am accurate in my narra- 
tive. Therefore it is proved that not after the arrival of Maxi- 
milian in Mexico, as asserted on page 20S, but from the very 
beginning of the strife, the demand was made for the only 
object sought by the conservative party, namely, the prerogatives 
and riches always sought by that party in whatever country it 
may reign. 

On the arrival of Maximilian these demands became stronger, 
and not only did he not yield (see pages iSS and 20S), but on 
the contrary he confirmed the reform laws, and did not restore to 
the clergy the remainder of their property, lost by the laws of 
nationalization and abolition of mortmain, and decreed that the 



tHE MEXICAN SPHINX. 17 

management and sale of this property should be vested in the 
Council of State. What better confirmation can we have of 
the necessity and expediency of the nationalization laws? 

The author whom I am contradicting, in passing judgment 
upon the conservative party which caused such enormous evils 
to their country, has only the following words: "A party not 
blameless altogether, but yet honest.'''' (See page 188.) 

I continue my refutation by copying literally from page 188 : 
" The spoliation of the Church by the republic, ruthless and un- 
discriminating, had created a conservative party, not blameless 
altogether, but yet honest ; and to that party Maximilian was 
pledged." 

I continue my system of inverting the sentence, beginning 
with what is most easily answered in few words. 

A party not blameless altogether, but yet honest, which joins 
with (even allowing, for the moment, that it did not call) the in- 
vader of its country ! I confess I cannot understand how it thus 
can retain anything of political honesty ; but as the reader is to* 
be the judge, he may perhaps find out how a person or party can 
be ^partly dishonorable and yet honest in general. To follow 
up the argument of the author, I will give one of my own, which 
he cannot contradict, as he has already sanctioned it before.. 
There are many Irishmen united with the English oppressors of 
their country, forming a party, " not blameless altogether, but yet 
honest"! Any commentary, even the slightest, would destroy 
the merit of the sublime patriotic idea of the author of relative 
honesty. 

Second part: " The spoliation of the Church by the republic" 
(which only happened in 1858, through the law nationalizing 
ecclesiastical property) " created this not altogether blameless 
conservative party." 

Let us see if from the facts, given by the author himself of the 
preceding opinion, the reader can make out the true inwardness 
of this matter, which as an historian the writer ought to have 
known. He says, on page 185, " It was impossible that such a 
people should be eager to seize upon the chances for the erection 
of a representative government on the ruins of hereditary despot- 
ism," and therefoi'e formed a monarchy which it is natural to 
infer would not be sustained by a liberal, but by a conservative, 
party. On the same page, and at the end of the paragraph, he 



18 THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 

tells us that "a faction collided with a faction" in our revolutions, 
which began in 1822, to establish for the first time a republic in 
Mexico, destroying the empire proclaimed in 1822. I understand 
by this that the party sustaining the republic was the liberal, and 
its opponent, defending monarchical ideas, the conservative ; while 
the author in question tells us, on page iSS,that" the conservative 
party was created in 1S5S in consequence of the spoliation of the 
Church." 

On page 1S5 he also tells us that " it is not wonderful that rev- 
olution followed revolution," and I will not accuse the author of 
.the book contradicted that his constant bias was sufficient to make 
him believe that one single political party could Jight alone from 
1822 to 1S58, as this can only be possible in print, not in reality. 
But as. according to him, the conservative party was only created 
in 1S5S in consequence of the spoliation of the Church, I would 
request him to tell us what was the party fighting from 1822 to 
185S against the republican party, blameless altogether, yet dis- 
honest, as I suppose it ought to be classified, according to the 
author's system. 

The same paragraph, on page 185, continues : "It is not sur- 
prising that province attacked province." The only answer to this 
is that it is entirely false. 

I have still to answer that item about the spoliation of the 
Church, and my intention is to contradict it with the aid of the 
very author of the term " spoliation." 

Let us begin by giving Webster's definition of the word " spolia- 
tion." It signifies " the act of plundering ; robbing by force." I 
believe that if a government nationalizes any property for the ben- 
efit of the people, it cannot be called plundering, as a nation can- 
not plunder itself. After this let us see if the origin of these same 
estates does not contradict the foregoing accusation. These es- 
tates had been given to the clergy, not in ownership, but in trust 
for the fulfilment of pious bequests, and when the trustee em- 
ployed these estates wrongly, for exciting revolts and maintaining 
charters and privileges to the detriment of the real proprietors, — 
the people, who had given these estates, — the latter reassumes the 
title, and supports the Church directly, as the author acknowledges 
on page 209: " The princely sees have disappeared" (referring 
to the spoliation which he considers unjust), "but the people 
sustain their clergy generously." Under the aspect which, in the 



THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 19 

opinion of the author himself, the nationalization of Church prop- 
erty has taken, it can no longer be stigmatized as a spoliation. 

Continuing the same paragraph, on page 209, the author recog- 
nizes that the so-called spoliation Avas rather beneficial, as it " has 
the effect of stimulating both Church and State in behalf of popu- 
lar education." Another favorable consequence is, " that the 
Church has brought religion more closely to the people." So 
that neither for these reasons does the nationalization of Church 
property deserve to be characterized as spoliation. 

We further learn, on page 210, from a quotation from Janvier, 
" that free schools, sustained by the State or municipal govern- 
ments, the Church or benevolent societies, are found in all towns 
and villages ; " and this since the laws abolishing mortmain were 
passed, which in this case, besides not being spoliative, have had 
the beneficial effect of doing away with controversies, and pre- 
venting the clergy from taking possession of the public schools, 
thus violating a constitutional precept. If we added to this that 
the clergy, whose eharacteristic picture the author gives us and 
notes their defects, drawing a parallel between the Church in 
Mexico and the Established Church in Ireland (pages 183, 206, 
and 207), neither of them beneficial to their people, has disap- 
peared, it is in Mexico a natural consequence of the law abolish- 
ing mortmain, thus producing a benefit to society, and for this 
reason also the nationalization law does not deserve to be branded 
as a robbery. 

I will conclude here with the quotations regarding the expro- 
priation of which, according to the author of " Political and Pro- 
gressive Mexico," the republic was guilty, and which quotations 
appear to me to prove the contrary of what they were intended. 

On page 208 he quotes from Alzog : " On the arrival of Maxi- 
milian in Mexico, the Church property confiscated and sold during 
the ascendency of Juarez and the French agency amounted to about 
one-third of the real estate of the empire, and one-half of the im- 
movable property of the municipalities," and this estimate con- 
siders only what was already sold, not including the property 
unsold. If we accept the above-given figures of thirty-three per 
cent, of the real estate of the empire, adding only ten per cent, 
for the part unsold, and eight per cent, as the value of the prop- 
erty of the municipalities, we obtain the astonishing result that 
over fifty per cent, of all the property in Mexico was held in 



20 THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 

mortmain by the clergy. We must not omit to mention that 
nearly all this property was situated in the most populous dis- 
tricts of the country, and the reader may judge for himself 
whether or not the amortization of such an enormous amount of 
property could produce any benefit to the general public, and 
whether its gradual and steady increase was not a continuous 
menace to the foundations of society. 

The abolition of mortmain carried with it the extinction of 
charters and privileges providing for special courts for the 
clergy to try common crimes, governed by distinct laws dis- 
pensed by the privileged class itself to whom they referred. This 
constituted a kind of monarchical institution within the republic, 
and lasted until 1858, when the law abolishing mortmain was 
passed. Can it still be called unjust and spoliative? 

It seems to me that there exists some analogy between the 
abolition of mortmain in Mexico, and of slavery in the United 
States (even admitting that the property of the Church was not 
simply given by the donors in trust for certain benefits), as both 
institutions represented a property, both were abolished because 
they presented a national menace, and in both cases it was done 
for the purpose of making all classes equal before the law. And 
while on the one hand the abolition of slavery removed all 
threatening danger from the progressive path of the United 
vStates, on the other hand the nationalization of Church property 
in Mexico brought about the definite establishment of a liberal 
republican system, smothered finally all monarchical aspirations, 
and, thanks to these reform laws, Mexico occupies to-day a place 
among the nations to which formerly she never could have 
aspired. With the preceding exposition, and with what I have 
cited from the author himself, confirming my opinion, I leave to 
my readers to decide whether the laws abolishing mortmain can 
be at the same time beneficial and expoliative. 

Examining what the author whom I refute has written con- 
cerning education, I find a passage which has astonished me, and 
which has furnished the name for this pamphlet, " The Mexican 
Sphinx." On page 199 we read, " The history of education in 
Mexico is one of hopelessly tangled threads, which, like the 
mystic symbols on the monuments of Egypt, have scarcely begun 
to yield their secrets." As he is too profuse in this argument, 
I must invite the reader who desires to know the details to 



THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 21 

follow the author to the' next page, where he abandons arch- 
eology to launch into historical research concerning the foun- 
dation of the University of Mexico and its founders, and after 
mentioning Saint Thomas Aquinas and the paintings which 
adorn the University, he arrives at page 204, saying, " The Uni- 
versity w r as abolished in 1865," while, on page 209, he states, 
"There is no national University, but the people are learning 
to read." He does not, how T ever, mention either the higher in- 
struction given in the University, nor if until then there were any 
colleges and public schools. Turning backward again, as it 
really seems that it is in the author's work that there are hope- 
lessly tangled threads, I find, on page 203, a quotation from 
Brantz Mayer, asserting that "there was no appropriation for 
public schools ; " to which the author adds, " Colleges appear to 
have been then as useless as the University ; for out of a popula- 
tion of seven millions, less than seven hundred thousand could 
read." 

As he does not speak of public schools, but of colleges, any 
reader must infer that reading is taught in colleges in Mexico. 
On page 210 he quotes Janvier, who writes thirty years after the 
promulgation of the reform laws, and says that " the all but 
universal illiteracy of fifty years ago is rapidly diminishing." 
Further on Janvier says, that, " with very few exceptions, free 
schools sustained by the State or municipal governments, the 
Church or benevolent societies, are found in all towns and 
villages ; and in all the cities and larger towns private schools 
are numerous;" and that "while forty years before, the total 
sum expended on education by the government may not have 
exceeded a hundred thousand dollars," at the time of writing 
" it was more nearly five millions, if the contributions from other 
sources, public and private, were included." Adding also that 
" there are free night schools for men and women, in which 
trades are taught." Referring to an American economist, who 
visited Mexico two years before, or in 18S6, our author quotes, 
on page 211, what I will copy verbatim : " It is safe to say that 
more good, practical work has been done in this direction, 
within the last ten years, than in all the preceding three hundred 
and fifty. At all the important centres of population, free 
schools, under the auspices of the national government, and free 
from church supei'vision, are reported as established ; while the 



22 THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 

Catholic Church itself, stimulated, as it were, by its misfortunes, 
and apparently unwilling to longer rest under the imputation of 
having neglected education, is also giving much attention to the 
subject, and is said to be acting upon the principle of immedi- 
ately establishing two schools wherever, in a given locality, the 
Government or Protestant denominations establish one." Our 
author concludes his observations about education on pages 21 1 
and 212 thus: "The Government also maintains national 
schools of . agriculture, law, medicine, engineering, military 
science, music, and fine arts, as well as a national museum and 
a national library. The charitable and benevolent institutions, 
public and private, equal in number and scope, if they do not 
exceed, our own." 

In all that I have so far extracted from the work in question, 
taking special care always to mention the page where found, not 
a single word is mentioned about public schools from the time 
of the conquest up to 1844 ; neither can I find a single word 
about the general education which the Mexicans received in all 
branches of human knowledge, nor even the usual comparisons 
of which the author is so fond. But still that suffices to enable 
him to form his judgment, and to characterize the people in 
general which he is studying, and his opinion is as follows, 
general and absolute, not using a single word excluding this or 
that social class, as will be seen from pages quoted : pages 
184 and 185, completely ignorant ; page 200, ignorant, as there 
remained little material proofs of the achievements of the Span- 
iards in educating the conquered people ; page 209, ignorant till 
1S88, when the people were beginning to learn to read; and to 
conclude with the historical study which he makes of public edu- 
cation in Mexico under the system " Transeuntibus," I shall copy 
literally the final sentence of page 198, by which the reader will 
learn that the Mexican people continued to be ignorant in 188S. 
" Beautiful (Mexico) to those who robbed her, beautiful to the 
tourist, her real condition is one which depresses her own people" 
(the depression seems to be general), "whose poverty, igno- 
rance, and loneliness make them the most pitiable, as they are 
certainly the most kindly and polite, of this continent." 

To analyze the foregoing matter, I must again divide it into 
sundry points, as the reader must have observed the trouble it 
cost me to find a starting-point in the hopelessly entangled 
threads of this historical essay on education in Mexico. 



THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 23 

First. As regards the early history of education in Mexico, 
which the author compares to the unknown meaning of the 
Egyptian hieroglyphs, he says, " that nothing is known about 
the instruction of the Indians befoi'e the Spanish conquest." 
On the contrary, a great deal is accurately known about the 
laws, history, education, astronomical knowledge, and poetry 
of the Indians. Any Mexican, and, as for that, any earnest 
American student of Mexican history, might have told the 
author that before the conquest there existed the historical songs 
of Netzahualcoyotl, the historian, law-giver, learned astronomer, 
and poet king of Texcoco, recorded, as the original manuscript 
was lost, from tradition by his descendant, Fernando de Alba 
Ixtlilxochilt, who also wrote a " History of the Chichimecs." 
Both works were even published in Europe, in a translation by 
Fernan Compans ; and if the author could not find them in his 
excursion through the Mexican book-shops, of which he speaks 
on page 202 and 203, he might have found them at the national 
library. 

Second. " The Spaniards have left very little material proof 
of their achievements for the education of the Mexican people." 

This is also false, as proved by the author himself whom I am 
refuting, as among the notable buildings, which he mentions on 
page 212, there are many which, since early Spanish times, were 
destined for the purpose which they are filling to-day. If he had 
paused to reflect a moment when he spoke about the University 
which had always admitted all social classes, the conquerors as 
well as the conquered, he might have beheld material and mon- 
umental proofs, which, although contemplating them, he did 
not see (page 200) . 

Third. ' ' There were no schools in 1 844," — at least the reader 
is left so to infer, as the author's essay on education in Mexico 
does not make the slightest mention of schools. This is 
again false, as I shall prove later on by the author's own 
words, as the education of the people in schools commenced 
immediately after the conquest. It was certainly restricted, 
but the same will happen in the next centuries, if public schools 
are deprived of their independence by mixing religious and 
secular instruction. 

Fourth. "The colleges appear to have been useless until 
1844" (page 203). This is absolutely false, and only still 



24 THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 

further displays the disposition of the author to treat of subjects 
of which he knows nothing. Let him take the trouble to as- 
certain what the men educated in the colleges and the University 
of Mexico have written in the different branches of human 
learning, and he will perceive that not only was solid instruction 
given, but that Mexico was even honored by the results of her 
institutions of learning, established as far back as the colonial 
period. And, although that instruction did not obtain the high 
standard which it does to-day, being then restricted, as it always 
is where the religious element predominates, it is no exaggera- 
tion to say that, taking into consideration the conditions in the 
period to which I refer, the education given in its colleges can 
sustain with success any criticism which can be made by the 
author to whom I refer. 

I should require many pages to even give the names of the 
men whose works have given them a literary position in Mexico, 
therefore I will cite only Sr. Orozco y Berra, the latest of our 
historians, whose work on Mexico would teach our author many 
things of which he is now evidently ignorant. If I am not mis- 
taken, in order to judge a book it is not sufficient to look at the 
binding; it must also be read. In this same manner, to speak 
intelligently about the education given to a nation, especially 
when assuming the character of an historian studying this 
question, it is not sufficient to look at the college buildings from 
the outside, but it is necessary to study what is taught in their 
interior, if the historian himself possesses the necessary rudi- 
ments. If he does not, it is best not to mention anything in 
reference to education ; and the worst is, to render an absolute 
judgment concerning what is unknown to him. 

We have still to examine the paragraph of tender commiseration 
which our author launches against the Mexican people as a fare- 
well, and which I copy again verbatim, as well for the purpose of 
answering it as also to let my readers enjoy a sample of delicate 
tenderness, not equalled by either of the Spanish poets, Becker or 
Jorge Tsaacs. Page 198 reads: (Mexico) "beautiful to those 
who robbed her, beautiful to the tourist, her real condition is one 
which depresses her own people, whose poverty, ignorance, and 
loneliness make them the most pitiable, as they are certainly the 
most kindly and polite, people on this continent." 

I divide the foregoing paragraph to answer it, and begin by the 



THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 25 

item that Mexico has been robbed. If this refers to her good 
name, we know already the author of this robbery, and I coincide 
in his opinion ; but if it refers to anything else, I hope he will 
show us up this knavish thief. I am almost certain that it will 
again turn out to be those hated Englishmen. 

As regards his assertion that in 1888 the condition of Mexico 
was such as to depress her own people, as the Mexican nation is 
formed by this same people, it appeared that it depressed itself, 
which, I must confess, I am unable to understand. 

With regard to the poverty of the Mexican people, I have no 
trouble in confirming what the author of this statement tries to 
prove : first, " because it is to the credit of the Mexican govern- 
ment" (see page 217) " that no appeals for aid are sent over the 
world, as for another people oppressed by England ; " and, second, 
so great is the depression and poverty which the Mexican people 
suffer, that European capital flocks to Mexico, and whenever the 
government applies for a loan, four times the amount is soon 
subscribed. And as this capital cannot come in search of more 
profitable investments, since the Mexican people are so very poor 
and unable to pay more interest than others, it seems to be clear 
that this money flocks into Mexico as a charity ! 

As to the loneliness of the Mexican people, the author of "Po- 
litical and Progressive Mexico " commits an error of modesty 
which we cannot let pass by, because, thanks to his visit and his 
historical study, we have just emerged from this loneliness which 
has afflicted us for centuries ; and thanks to his accurate narrative, 
the isolation to which we were condemned begins gradually to 
disappear. If we have the good fortune to be studied by another 
author of the same strength, I am sure Mexico will be seen in its 
full light. 

I repeat that I am extremely obliged to the author for his kind 
attention in calling my countrymen, even if ignorant, the most 
kindly and polite people on this continent. Notwithstanding my 
appreciation of his kindness, I must observe that it seems that 
the Spaniard's politeness which we have inherited, like the schools, 
colleges, etc., shows good results; but should he believe that 
these schools do not benefit the people, I willingly submit to his 
opinion, and would only request him not to qualify the ignorance 
of the Mexican people with the name of a color generally applied 
in this country to another people. 



26 THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 

I may have explained my idea wrongly, but I have been told 
that a people polite in its manners and attentive in social inter- 
course possesses already some advantage of education over another 
nation. In my ignorance I cannot conceive how a people with- 
out education can obtain one of the distinctive attributes of civilized 
society in the sense to which I refer ; but if the author of the work 
in question should not approve my line of thought, as this question 
is one of personal judgment, following out my intention before 
announced, I shall respect his opinion, but must beg him not to 
make use of our failings for comparison with others, as he has 
used another people to compare with us, because we Mexicans do 
not believe in his system of comparisons. 

I now arrive at the printing-press in Mexico, of which subject 
the author of the book in question treats on pages 204 and 205. 
He says that the printing-press was introduced in Mexico twenty 
years after the conquest, and that the " Spaniards, unlike the 
English in Ireland, did not make the native tongue penal, and 
enact special statutes for hanging, disembowelling, exiling, or im- 
prisoning those who employed it for teaching purposes." (See 
page 204.) May he not have forgotten something more regarding 
penalties? But at any rate, we have already the satisfaction to 
learn that there are people even worse than the infamous Span- 
iards. How very bad these English must be ! 

On continuing my investigation regarding the printing-press, I 
learn " that it does not seem to have accomplished much in 
Mexico, because they printed books of devotion, a fact which ir- 
ritates some" (see page 205) ; and why, " would they have had 
the Greek classics printed for the natives, or works on metaphys- 
ics, science, and natural philosophy?" and he adds: "Who 
would have read them?" He is perfectly right in asking this 
question; who, indeed, would have read them? Immediately 
after this he makes an observation which I have not fully under- 
stood, but it seems he wishes to convej the idea that the dialects of 
the different tribes were not exchangeable. He continues to say, 
" that the printing-press had to make not one Spanish-Indian 
dictionary, but as many dictionaries as there were tongues ; " 
that " the natives refused the Spanish spelling-books, and contin- 
ued to hate and tease the invaders." 

With this lucid relation the readers of the work " Political and 
Progressive Mexico" must surely thoroughly understand the 



THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 27 

position of the printing-press in Mexico during the days of the 
conquest and under Spanish rule until Independence. But let us 
see how the situation continued from 1821 to 1888, according to 
the same author, and here I shall copy literally from the same 
page, 204: " To-day this diversity of speech remains to prove 
that the failure of the printing-press does not constitute good 
ground for indictment. There are, at least, five distinct lan- 
guages in Mexico ; and millions of the people remain totally or 
partially ignorant of the official language of the republic." Here 
it seems that the author committed an error in mentioning a re- 
public, as his imagination must surely have been occupied with 
kingdoms or empires when he spoke of an official language, as in 
the Mexican republic we know only a national language. 

I shall give here some explanations, begging my readers to 
compare them with the above-quoted paragraph on page 205. 
The printing-press was not imported into Mexico without some 
good results. Not alone did it produce the first newspaper in 
America, and scientific books which, notwithstanding the author's 
assertion, found interested readers and natives who were in- 
structed by them ; but it also printed, not dictionaries, which 
would have been useless, but many primary books in as many 
dialects, which were gradually studied with the utmost care. 
The conquerors as well as the clergy worked in unison, because 
the different means pursued by both were directed to obtain the 
same result, viz., the conquest, by attracting the natives through 
religion, teaching them Spanish, and dominating them thus more 
easily than by foixe. 

For this purpose, from the first natives converted they selected 
the most competent ones to educate them for the priesthood, by 
giving them just the necessary instruction to fill their part of 
catechist. They were raised in privileges and consideration 
somewhat above their countrymen ; and this system, ably con- 
ceived, contributed largely towards spreading the Spanish lan- 
guage among the natives. In the course of years, and through 
the continuation of the same system even after the independence 
of Mexico, the knowledge of Spanish spread among the tribes 
of the North, as proved by several of those to-day confined on the 
North American reservations. 

The author should have asked any Spanish-speaking American, 
who had lived for some time in Mexico, whether on any occasion 



28 THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 

Spanish was not sufficient for his intercourse with the natives in 
any part of the country. 

As regards the author's not less unfounded assertion that 
" there are at least five distinct languages in Mexico," it is about 
as c\act as if I should say that there is a population of at least 
five millions in the United States. Always the same display of 
accuracy. 

In the chapter headed " Religion and Education" (page 199) 
I find the following passage, dedicated by the author to the politi- 
cal and social progress of Mexico, which I will copy textually : 
" If we look more closely at the Mexico of this century, of this 
quarter of the century, and of the present decade, it becomes 
apparent that a change, organic and constitutional, has been com- 
ing silently upon this ancient and secluded country. It is not a 
change brought about by war, nor substantially advanced by di- 
plomacy. It is a silent revolution, moving gently in the footsteps 
of peace. We must seek the evidences of it in education, agri- 
culture, and manufactures, and in the sources and uses of rev- 
enue." 

I will make a stop here, to see if I am able to understand what 
the author intended by these silent movements. I cannot ex- 
plain to myself as the effect of a silent revolution, a so notable 
change in the manner of existence of a nation, which, after putting 
an end to the era of its internal revolutions, enters with firm and 
decided step on the path of peace, increases its commerce, greatly 
develops its industries and agriculture, covers its territory with a 
net-work of railways, doubles its revenues, and infuses more ani- 
mation and movement into its public and social life. He says that 
this silent revolution is not " a change brought about by war ; " and 
I believe he is right, because to me, who have seen, since the war 
with the United States in 1S47, until much later, a good many 
wars, it appears that they all take place with a good deal of 
noise. Neither has it been " substantially advanced by diplo- 
macy ; " and here he is right again, as I never have heard of any 
international treaty by which we changed our former political 
restlessness for a silent movement without impulsion. I will there- 
fore leave my readers to explain for themselves this silent move- 
ment, and accepting the author's statement that Mexico continued 
in iSSS in silent progress, I will take up again the guerilla 
system, demanded by the critical examination of this work, and 



THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 29 

return to page 196, where I find the following passage. While 
quoting Wells, for the assertion that "in his opinion the State 
governments forming the Mexican Union are less under federal 
control than in the United States," and explaining what "public 
opinion" and " class" means in Mexico, the author comes to the 
following conclusion : " Why, then, should not the administra- 
tion be despotic? The fountain will not rise higher than the 
source." I must stop here to inquire, on what is based the 
judgment of the author, who calls the Mexican government 
despotic, while at the same time he tacitly confesses that it has 
formed a good administration. We have seen by the paragraph 
on page 199, which I copied, that, referring to the silent move- 
ment of progress which was taking place in Mexico in 1888, 
he calls it " a silent movement, moving gently in the footsteps 
of peace ; " and adds, " of this we seek the evidences in education, v 
agriculture, and manufactures, and the sources and uses of 
revenue." It seems to me that a government producing the 
foregoing benefits is not, nor can be, a bad government. The fact 
that, according to our author, not all those who ought to partici- 
pate in the elections took part in the official vote for president 
(page 195), and that the practical politicians exercise the princi- 
pal influence in the elections, and that there exists public opinion, 
and other suppositions of this kind, do not justify, in my opinion, 
his calling a government elected in this manner, despotic, when 
afterwards he acknowledges the benefits produced by its good 
administration. 

I must recall to his memory something which it seems he 
ought to know, viz., that the practical politicians in nearly 
every country give to the elections the turn suited to their inter- 
est ; and that the votes of those who do not belong to what are 
classes in Mexico, and in some other nations are not even natives 
of the country in which the elections are held, generally do not 
represent their personal opinion, but are blindly influenced by 
interested parties, although the government, which they thus help 
to elect, is not for this occasion called despotic. I believe also 
that the quotation from Wells on the same subject does not help 
the author to prove his assertion. But, nevertheless, for argu- 
ment's sake, I will accept his assertion, and, using the queer 
logic which so often is exhibited in his work, I will see what it 
produces as regards Mexico. 



30 THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 

I do not believe that anybody can suppose that a government, 
sustained by the unanimous opinion of the governed, inspiring 
absolute confidence abroad, and showing its merits by proofs 
which even the author must acknowledge, can be called despotic 
in any part of the world. I believe neither that a despotic 
government can produce any of the benefits related in the work 
in question. But according to the logic of the author, who pic- 
tures everything in Mexico as diametrically opposite to accepted 
theories or facts, we learn that a despotic government produces 
the benefits of raising Mexico's credit abroad, procuring stability 
and peace at home, and impelling the country silently on the 
path of progress ; and one more logical conclusion, the good and 
not the despotic governments incite revolutions. 

Nothing less could happen in a country like Mexico, where 
everything appears to be contrary to the course of nature, accord- 
ing to the author of " Political and Progressive Mexico." 
Although independent, her people do not begin to enjoy their 
natural rights, because the agrarian laws have not been first modi- 
fied (page 184). Under a despotic government (page 195) the 
country improves and progresses (page 199), while other coun- 
tries under such a government are retrograding. In her revolu- 
tions a single party, seemingly ambi-political, fights since 1822 
for the republican as well as the monarchical principle (page 185) 
until 1S58, when the conservative party was created (page 1S8). 
And this party, created in 1858, although allying itself with the 
invaders of its country, was not dishonorable, as would have 
happened in any other country, but proved to be " not blameless 
altogether, yet honest " (page 18S). "After the. death of Hi- 
dalgo his country relapsed under oppression," thus, falsifying 
history, the author converts the heroic struggle from 1812 to 
1821 into a mere canard (page 184). When independence from 
Spain was accomplished, and a monarchical government estab- 
lished, it turns out to be really a republic (page 1S4). When 
her advancements begin to be notable, they are the consequences 
of a silent movement not brought about by war (page 199), 
which means, we are to presume, caused the advance of other 
nations. Her poverty is so great (page 198) that no appeals for 
aid are sent all over the world (page 217) ; yet, notwithstanding, 
foreign capital flows into Mexico, to find more profitable invest- 
ment than any other and richer countries can offer. And, finally, 



THE MEXICAN SPHINX. . 31 

passing by many curious statements which might be extracted, I 
shall only mention that the Mexican people, although poor (page 
198), ignorant (pages 184, 185, and 209), depressed, robbed, 
pitiable, and lonely (page 198), yet, withal, present the rare 
phenomenon of being the most kindly and polite people on this 
continent. If anybody should doubt the foregoing contradictory 
picture which, I repeat, is applied to Mexico, the most incom- 
prehensible and untranslatable country, I can only answer him, 
that it is founded on facts and historical studies, made by an 
eye-witness, and complying with the precept of Bernal Diaz 
del Castillo. Is it not true that Mexico is really a wonderful 
country ? 

It was during the year of 1886 that, in the Boston Horticultural 
Hall, lectures were given on peculiarities of Mexico. Thousands 
of persons heard the orator, who, speaking of the Mexican national 
drink, pulque, said: "But the most surprising quality of pul- 
que is, that it does not affect the head, producing intoxication in 
the lower extremities only ; for example, if a person, sitting in 
a chair, drinks large quantities, he cannot rise afterward, while 
his head remains as cool as yours and mine." " Wonderful ! 
wonderful ! " exclaimed the lecturer, on finishing his narrative, 
and I repeat, years afterward, Wonderful ! 

Returning to my refutation, the author says on page 196, "by 
information received from patriotic persons," he supposes that 
there does not exist any "public opinion" in Mexico ; another 
gentleman, not a Mexican, the eminent Secretary of State of 
this country, has proved how to estimate that opinion, by his 
answer given to some pretentious citizens of Arizona, in a 
question relating to Mexico, giving at the same time a severe 
lesson of patriotism to the informants of our author, who 
appear to me to be of the same ilk as those who belong to that 
party which the author qualifies as not blameless altogether, yet 
honest. I can only regret that he did not reveal the names of 
those respectable patriots, as I believe that truth and patriotism 
should be honored. 

Applying the proverb used by him on page 195, " The foun- 
tain will not rise higher than the source," to a people, it ought 
to be taken in the sense that 'every nation has that kind of 
government which it deserves. The answer is very simple : com- 
paring two nations, — Ireland and Mexico, — he, not I, has done 



32 THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 

them justice, and I accept it without the necessity of further ex- 
planations. But I do not accept for both nations (if he allows 
me to be perfectly frank) the hidden meaning of the statement 
regarding the fountain and its source ; not alone because if 
the source is not very clear, I ought not to permit undue allu- 
sions, but also because this is not the place to answer it. I will 
therefore reserve it, and in due time I will avail myself of his 
allusions, allowing him, however, their undisputed paternity. 

Continuing on my course of investigation, I arrive at page 
227, and note the following passage : The author explains that 
the misunderstandings and prejudices caused by the unfortunate 
war of 1847, between the United States and Mexico, are grad- 
ually disappearing, and that every day brings the sister republics 
closer together in friendly relations. All this, and what is further 
mentioned on page 228, promotes peace and harmony between 
the American and Mexican people, and he desires that even the 
last remnants of the memories of that war might be blotted out. 
Here the reader will observe, for the first time, an idea indi- 
cating praiseworthy and generous thought in the author. But 
1 am afraid that this thought, which he has found pleasure in 
destroying almost before it was uttered, will not last long. 

I must turn backward again to page 210 in order to gather, as 
I did before, what refers to the same subject and which is scat- 
tered in artistic confusion throughout the whole work. After re- 
minding the reader that our author does not know the Spanish 
language, and that he has not said a single word about the methods 
of instruction used, I copy literally: "It must be owned, how- 
ever, that the history used in the schools gives a version of the 
American war with Mexico which would somewhat surprise 
General Scott and the gallant lieutenants who fought with him." 
To sow suspicion by intentional and disguised words appears to 
our author as the means most adapted to cause that to be forgotten 
which he says ought not to be remembered, and contributes toward 
the desirable end which he assures us to have in view ! The only 
thing certain in his assertion is that it is the opinion of a person 
who knowingly and mercilessly scourges historical truth, and who 
takes delight in complying inversely with the motto adapted at 
the beginning of the work. 

I shall also overlook his assertions regarding the servitude under 
which he supposes the Mexican, people suffer, and the Mexican 



THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 33 

valor for the combat. In order to refute the first, I would be 
forced to make a comparative examination, which, though not 
using any depreciating words, which I never employ, would divert 
me from my purpose of avoiding comparisons; but, if I -should 
be forced into such a controversy, I would need but little exertion 
to give a very telling answer. As regards the second point, as 
we do not need a certificate either affirmative or negative from 
the author or anybody else for any purpose whatsoever, I can only 
answer him humbly that his opinion is not worthy to be taken 
into account, as it is visibly affected by a preconceived prejudice. 



I purposely left for the last examination a subject which, in my 
opinion, is very serious, as it is uttered by a Catholic, and was 
published in a newspaper whose title indicates its character, — 
" The Catholic World." 

The author of the work under discussion, when referring to the 
acts of the conquerors of Mexico and to the means they employed 
for dominating the conquered race, says, on page 180, quoting 
from Janvier: "They (the Spaniards) charge the natives with 
cruelty ; they set up the Inquisition among them to enable the 
State to be more cruel, while the name of the Church was bor- 
rowed to wear the responsibility, and carry down to our time the 
reproach." I must confess that I never heard anything more 
atrocious. 

The universal reprobation which has fallen on the Inquisition 
becomes doubly horrible if to its many sins is still to be added 
what the paragraph copied above indicates ; but the latter may 
be considered as a production of the author whom I am contra- 
dicting, because I have read with great care pages 25, 26, and 27 
of Janvier's work, and its contents differ from the extract made 
by our author to such an extent that it seems to me that Janvier's 
statement about the intentions of the Spaniards in the establish- 
ment of the Inquisition in Mexico is entirely different from what 
the author of the work in question asserts. 

On pages 25 and 26 Janvier says : "About the year 1529 a 
council was held in the city of Mexico composed of the most 
notable men, religious, military, and civil, then in the Province, 
including Bishop Fuenleal, who was President of the Audiencia, 



34 THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 

together with all the members of that body ; the Bishop of Mex- 
ico (Zumarraga), the heads of the Dominican and Franciscan 
orders, the municipal authorities, and two prominent citizens. 
As the result of its deliberations, this council solemnly declared : 
It is most necessary that the Holy Office of Inquisition shall be 
extended to this land, because of the commerce with strangers 
here carried on, and of the many corsairs abounding upon our 
coasts, which strangers may bring their evil customs among both 
natives and Castilians, who by the grace of God should be kept 
free from heresy. . . ." Further, on the same page 26 he 
says: "The full fruit of the declaration of the council ripened 
in 1570, when, under date of August 16th, a royal order issued, 
appointing Don Pedro Moya de Contreras (afterward Arch- 
bishop, and sometime Viceroy of the Province) Inquisitor Gen- 
eral of New Spain, Guatemala, and the Philippine Islands, with 
headquarters in the city of Mexico. The fact should be noted 
that the royal order under which the Inquisition was established 
in Mexico expressly exempted the Indians from its jurisdiction, — 
a political arrangement that gave it from the outset a strong, -pop- 
ular support." The comparison between the above quotation of 
Janvier's work and the quotation of the same by the author 
to whom I refer, proves that the latter's truthfulness does not in- 
dicate much historical study, and moreover demonstrates that a 
prejudice is a moral infirmity, which not only prevents from per- 
ceiving the limits not to be passed by a narrator of historical events, 
but also from seeing the objects as they really are. 

The consideration of the religious fanaticism of the century 
when the Inquisition was established, the ideas of absolutism in 
the government, and other reasons so well known that it is not 
necessary to mention them, are alone sufficient in the conscience 
of the historian studying that dreadful tribunal to mitigate some- 
what its odious enormity. If, however, it is despoiled of what 
contributes towards forgetting it, and its memory is revived among 
the people by representing the Roman Catholic Church as accept- 
ing the part of executioner, not for the purpose of purifying the 
religious creed, but for the purpose of dominating the innocent, 
miserable, and conquered people by means of the rack and the 
stake, there will never have been described anything more repug- 
nant, nor the enemies of the Catholic Church furnished with a 
more terrible weapon, 



THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 35 

Was the author of this idea convinced of its truth? Did he 
reflect that on launching this terrible accusation he would stab, 
not the conqueror, but the Church? Or did he believe that he 
could upbraid the Spanish clergy without offending others ? 

If, instead of seeking for sensations to figure in newspaper ar- 
ticles, he had paused to reflect for a moment before making such 
use of his pen, he would not have descended to a ground which, 
in my opinion, he ought to have respected. By no means was it 
necessary that the Church would have lent her name to enable the 
State to be cruel. As Church and State were in close union, the 
efforts of both these powers were directed to the same end, and, 
without diverting the Inquisition from the purpose for which it 
was created, or without assisting the conqueror to be more cruel 
toward the native, the Church obtained their absolute submis- 
sion by protecting them, because her interest demanded that 
the religion preached by her should not become odious to the 
Indians. 

In all times the Church has rested upon the mass of her faith- 
ful followers ; but if she makes religion odious to them, she could 
neither retain them nor increase their number, but would lose 
their support. The same thing took place during the conquest 
of Mexico and for centuries afterward, the clergy showing great 
activity in converting the Mexican Indian races, and either by or- 
daining for priesthood those natives who proved to be most com- 
petent to catechise their conquered brethren or by using other 
means, to obtain the object in view ; viz., to lean on the masses in 
order to retain such preponderating influence in the State that 
the latter was forced to obtain the sanction of the Church for all 
its acts, whether they affected religion or not. This is a logical 
deduction, proved, not contradicted, by history on every page. 
On the other hand, it is illogical, and proves the contrary of what 
it is intended to do, — to suppose for a single moment that the 
sacrifice of the natives through the Inquisition could have fos- 
tered in them a fanaticism on religious subjects which is evident 
even to-day. 

In Mexico they raise statues to missionary priests, and call 
them apostles and protectors of the native race. But against 
whom did they defend the Indians? Naturally against the con- 
querors. Could they have done this if the Church had made 
common cause with the conqueror to martyrize the natives by 



36 THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 

giving him a religious order for the purpose? Can it be supposed 
for a moment that the Church would not have been cognizant of 
this? Is it likely that those missionary priests, so wrapped up in 
their noble mission that they did not hesitate to alleviate the situa- 
tion of the Mexican Indian at the expense of numberless sacrifices, 
even of their lives, that they should protect the native against the 
conqueror, only to leave him at the mercy of the Inquisition? 

Without going back to former events, and only taking advan- 
tage of what, the sight of the collegiate church of our Lady of 
Guadalupe suggests to a student looking for facts to clear up 
some points in the history of a race, he would have found abun- 
dant motives for a well-founded understanding of the exact truth. 
He had only to inquire, how, by whom, and for whom the 
before-mentioned collegiate church was erected, in order to 
clearly understand that these could not be the effects of the In- 
quisition, whose only product is universal execration. 

I do not consider that the facts which called for Swinton's book, 
causing an agitation which has not yet subsided, are as serious as 
the above-given quotation of the author of " Political and Pro- 
gressive Mexico." Swinton referred to occurrences which, if 
true, would only assume a speculative character, while those 
asserted by the author in question, if certain, amount to the in- 
famous sacrifice of thousands of human lives by the rack and the 
stake under cover of the mantle of the Church, with a monastic 
fraternity as executioner through the Inquisition, making a pic- 
ture most repulsive not alone to the sight of an enemy of the 
Church, but even to that of the most fervent Catholic. 

It may be that I am mistaken in supposing that he desires to 
exalt, not to humble, the Catholic Church. If this should be the 
case, I will take back what I said on this subject, and accept his 
opinion in regard to the opportuneness of publishing what he con- 
siders an historical study. It remains yet to be seen whether, if 
any one take advantage of it in order to attack the Church, how 
can such an attack be refuted, considering by whom it was pub- 
lished first. 

With the foregoing I have concluded what I intend at present 
to publish in refutation of the work, " Political and Progressive 
Mexico," and I believe that I have succeeded in demonstrat- 
ing, by the book itself, how little of truth it contains, and that 
it cannot deny its origin nor its purpose, which certainly was not 
to present to the reader anything which could instruct him. 



THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 37 

In the works of Janvier, Wells, and Brantz Mayer, consulted by 
him, can be found at least something not wholly unfavorable to 
Mexico ; but if anything of that kind is quoted by him, it is not 
for the purpose of accepting, but of contradicting, the favorable 
opinion of the original author, adopting as his own only those 
passages which can be used in any way to confirm the passionate 
prejudice displayed by the author, through the historical sketch 
to which I refer. 

I have diligently searched whether perhaps the monumental 
objects of our country, which always exercise a powerful in- 
fluence on the minds of historians, caused any favorable im- 
pression on the writer alluded to, because the works of genius 
in a country go far to influence any opinion of that country ; but 
I failed to find any such indications. But it could not be other- 
wise, as his object was not to write impartially, but to take 
advantage of the opportunity for applying to a nation the predom- 
inate bias of the author ; for this purpose it was necessary to 
humble her people in every respect, to wound their patriotism 
without any cause or motive, and. pronounce them to be abject, 
oppressed, miserable, poor, and ignorant, and to preach to them 
that they should make an effort for the recovery of their liberty, 
seventy years after they heroically had conquered it. For this 
end it was also necessary that the teachings of history should be 
forgotten, as well as what is being published daily by competent 
persons ; but not satisfied with that, the author added to his 
absolute ignorance of the people whom he was studying, a'n entire 
forgetfulness of every rule of equity. The result of all this had 
necessarily to be such a mass of errors that it was only sufficient 
to coordinate and expose them in order to see them destroyed by 
their own contradictions. This is all the more noteworthy, 
because the author, in order to give a more serious character 
to his work, invokes as his motto a maxim which not only justi- 
fies my remarks, but even imperatively demands them. 

He undertook to pass judgment upon a people which, on 
account of its origin, as well as of the different races of which it 
is composed, possesses a peculiar character of nationality of its 
own. Born to a life of liberty and shaking off foreign domina- 
tion, it was obliged to make Titanic efforts in order to advance 
out of the total absence of political self-government under which 
it had suffered for centuries before the day of its independence, to 
its actual political constitution, which is a model amongst the 



38 THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 

most liberal, since although it does not grant the electoral vote to 
foreigners, it gives them the same rights otherwise as Mexicans. 
As a free nation, casting loose from a most narrow religious 
fanaticism, and from statutes and privileges oppressing the mid- 
dle and lower classes of society, it has succeeded in giving them 
perfect equality and in establishing religious liberty ; and as a 
rare phenomenon, it has not only continued in the path of prog- 
ress in education and improvements in every sense, not even 
checked by its revolutions, but also the public wealth is increas- 
ing, and the political commotions have left so little demoralization 
in the social masses that it is exceeded very little, if at all, by 
other nations in regard to personal safety ; and as for respect for 
property and commercial honesty, it can, without fear, invite 
comparison with other nations which have not been obliged in 
their progress to undergo such severe trials. 

Hardly have the traces of a bloody foreign invasion been ob- 
literated when an era of most marked progress sets in, thanks to 
an administration established on solid foundations ; education is 
extended widely ; the extension of a telegraphic system, which has 
already acquired noteworthy proportions, is encouraged ; gen- 
erous subventions are granted for providing the country with a 
network of railroads ; public l-evenue is doubled ; the credit of 
the country abroad is rising, and inspires such confidence that 
more money is offered than is asked for, and foreign capital flows 
in to seek advantageous investments in private enterprises or in 
public bonds, which are the most trustworthy guides for estimating 
the stability of a government or the condition of a people ; and 
this is the moment which a winter believes opportune for calling 
that government despotic, and that people oppressed. Is it pos- 
sible to regard his opinion as justified by the knowledge which he 
pretends to possess of the history of that nation? To terminate 
this refutation, I can add that it was only necessary for him to 
write without the slightest knowledge and under the influence of 
a constant prejudice, and to defame a nation by making inoppor- 
tune comparisons, in order to demonstrate the truth of the author's 
own saying, — 

" The fountain will not rise higher than the source." 

The volume containing the historical study which I have re- 
futed covers also another literary work under the title of " Pictur- 
esque Mexico," which shows a marked difference not only in its 



THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 39 

* 

character, but also because it reveals the efforts of the author to 
make it as exact as possible. As the writer was provided with a 
fair knowledge of the Spanish language, he expresses the more 
truthfully the notes taken during an excursion to Mexico ; and 
when about to compile in book form the articles originally written 
for a newspaper, he tried to perfect his knowledge of Spanish in 
order to better understand what he was studying, and in this 
manner to be able to form a more just opinion. But as soon as 
he came in contact with subjects not verified by his own eyes, he 
could not escape some slight errors, which certainly are very par- 
donable, as his work does not make any pretentions to be of an 
historical character, like the one I have just refuted. I am really 
sorry to be obliged to rectify some of his statements, as I must ac- 
knowledge that his work has not the intention of hurting our 
feelings. 

On page 69 and 70, narrating a visit paid to an abandoned and 
half-ruined convent, the author takes occasion to characterize 
the action of the Mexican government in nationalizing the 
property of the Church, and afterwards, as he supposes, aban- 
doning it to ruin, as "another of the hieroglyphics of this 
untranslatable countiy." These mysterious hieroglyphics can 
be deciphered in every language ; the convent alluded to was 
sold to an American railroad company some years before the 
author to whom I refer visited it, and it was not put to the use 
for which it was purchased ; this is an American, not a Mexican, 
hieroglyphic. 

On page 50, referring to Maximilian, he makes some remarks 
which, in part, have already been answered in my foregoing refu- 
tation of the work " Political and Progressive Mexico." I dis- 
sent from his opinion that Mexico under the dominion of a 
foreign prince would have found that which she has to-day, 
without desiring more, under a " military despotism," which 
allows us more individual liberty than in other countries. This 
is a question of patriotism, according to the different conception 
of the same. As regards the- complete abnegation and personal 
sacrifice of the unhappy prince whom he mentions, I am sorry 
to dissent again from his opinion, as it would be necessary to 
reverse the past and obliterate events which contradict that 
opinion. But still I find it strange that when visiting the spot 
where the nation dealt out justice to one who, through ambition, 
sacrificed so many lives and left thousands of families in orphan- 



40 THE MEXICAN SPHINX. 

age, misery, and mourning, he should not turn his vision to the 
adjacent fields, and on learning of the many thousands of men 
cut down there by an ambitious prince's persistence in making a 
nation happy against her wishes, should have consecrated to 
them a small part of the tender remembrance which he doubt- 
less guards for his countrymen who died in defence of the in- 
dependence of their country, as I suppose the life of a man is 
of the same value, be he an Indian or European, if it is sacrificed 
to so noble a cause. 

In order that he may compare the abnegation and self-sacri- 
fice of a prince with the abnegation of a plebeian, I will permit 
myself a small digression, for the truth of which I can vouch. 
Two Mexicans suffered' together with Maximilian the same 
penalty ; they were Miramon and Mexia, — the latter an Indian of 
pure race. The former would not even attempt to recover his 
liberty, although possessing great facilities to favor his flight, if 
Maximilian could not share the same opportunity." Mexia had 
formerly saved the life of a general who had great influence in 
the victorious army of Queretaro. Out of gratitude this general 
sought the presence of the captive Mexia and told him: "I 
owe you my life, and will pay my debt by saving yours." Mexia 
asked: "Is the emperor going with me?" and receiving for 
answer, "Impossible," he answered, "I shall remain ;" and he 
was shot together with Maximilian and Miramon. I beg the 
author to learn the facts concerning the attempted escape of 
Maximilian from Queretaro. 

I repeat that, although I have been obliged to answer some of 
his assertions I do not respect the less his personal opinion. 
For me his work has not only the merit which in justice is due 
to its intrinsic value, but also another, in that by its publication 
in the same volume with and pi-eceding a work in which we 
are described as an ignorant and lonely people, separated from 
other civilized nations, it gives powerful assistance to my ref- 
utation of the latter work. In order to not destroy the effect of 
" Political and Progressive Mexico," its companion of publica- 
tion, " Picturesque Mexico," should not be read, or other- 
wise it is necessary to deny the truthfulness of the statements 
of an author who paints our country in a manner exactly con- 
trary to the picture of the other writer. It is impossible to 
attribute equal, truthfulness to both works, and I shall leave the 
reader to judge of their respective merits. 



t 



